Silbury Hill 180
Image by thesweetcheat
Silbury Hill

Trespass on SSSI sites

Evergreen Dazed E
Evergreen Dazed Sep 6, 2012 12:36:22
Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:
O for Gods sake, it wasnt trespass (look it up) and it wasnt breaking a guardian's rules and the circumstances were entirely different to whats been discussed on this thread. If you want to say Ah that proves our attitude towards rules is justified and I'm "as bad as you" then go ahead. I think anyone that doesnt want to pretend otherwise will see there's a massive difference and will know precisely why youre trying to say there isnt.
Nigel, please..

Were you breaking any rules at Priddy?
If the answer is 'Yes' (which we all know it is), how can you possibly justify your previous stance on rule breaking?

Or are there indeed shades of grey after all?

R Rhiannon
Rhiannon Sep 6, 2012 12:44:24
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Why are you going on about "rules" as though that's what this discussion is about?
It's only been about =one= rule ie not going on prehistoric sites when you[ve specifically been asked not to, to prevent damage to the site.

It's irrelevant whether Nigel has trespassed just anywhere, because those places don't have this damage-mitigating rule.

Even if he had wandered all over Silbury in the past*, if that's not his stance any more it's pretty irrelevant to whether or not =you= can in a reasoned argument, justify your own trespassing on fragile sites now.

*which I can't imagine he has, right.

© 2026 Head Heritage.

Unless otherwise stated, the copyright in each work is the property of the respective contributor. For usage or questions, contact [email protected].